What happened after the Romans left Britain? (1 Viewer)

[larso]

Without double checking the history pages, I think the last of the Roman army left Britain in 410 AD. Then at some point the Dark Ages hit. My question is, how long did it take to happen and what did it look like? Surely there must have been several decades where things went along pretty much as they had always done. Former legionairs who'd settled in Britain after their enlistments expired would've kept the peace quite well. So everything would've looked pretty Roman still. When though would this have begun to change?

 

[waynepoo]

Without double checking the history pages, I think the last of the Roman army left Britain in 410 AD. Then at some point the Dark Ages hit. My question is, how long did it take to happen and what did it look like? Surely there must have been several decades where things went along pretty much as they had always done. Former legionairs who'd settled in Britain after their enlistments expired would've kept the peace quite well. So everything would've looked pretty Roman still. When though would this have begun to change?

I have no idea really, but I am guessing that the raiding of the Vikings may have changed things a bit.
Wayne.

 

[trooper]

When the Romans left there was no central power overseeing the country. The people reverted to their old ways and petty kingdoms sprang up. The former legionaries owed nothing to Rome and obviously looked after their own interests with raids on neighbouring areas for cattle and slaves. In addition there was a growing invasion of Angles, Jutes and Saxons from Northern Europe intent on grabbing better lands in Britain as well as the Viking raids for loot and slaves. This was traditionaly the time of Arthur, a character whose existance is still being debated. According to some ancient accounts he organised a mighty war band and fought the Saxons at several locations finally defeating their forces at Mons Badon, a hill just outside Bath, which set back their advance for many years. the Roman buildings gradually fell into disrepair and were replaced by the usual round houses and so the Roman appearance of the countryside soon vanished. Records of this period are very scarce as the only literates were monks and clergy many of whom were subject to raids either by Vikings or by itinerate war bands who tended to destroy and burn everything they couldn't carry off. This lack of information led to this period being named the Dark Ages. Trooper

 

[johnnybach]

Interesting questions Larso................

How long did it take for the Dark Ages to kick in? and when did it change?

Well, as Trooper suggests - The Dark Ages are indeed characterised by a lack of witten historical evidence - and as the Arthurian Legends aptly illustrate - we often have to rely on secondary and largely fanciful accounts, written - often by Clerics - several centuries later.

My guess is that it wouldn't have taken very long for most of the ordinary Celtic folk to revert to their normal ways of living ( if this had ever changed much at all, when the visitors came), once they had realised that the occupying Roman Force had left - and weren't coming back. My guess is also that any structure which had been abandoned - would have pretty soon been robbed of its fabric and materials - as soon as they could carry them off - before someone else did!

The concept of King Arthur - that Trooper also mentions - as one who tried to fill the power vacuum left by the Roman departure - and tries to resist succesive invasions by peoples such as Angles, Saxons Vikings et al - on land or goods-grabbing expeditions - is interesting - but owes much of its imaginitive narative to a few works which were written (and survived) several centuries later on.

One of the first datebale texts (written in Latin in the 9th Century) is from a Welsh Cleric named Nennius - and lists battles fought by a War lord named Arthur in the late 5C/early 6C. Another text (Annals Cambria - or Welsh Annals) date the Battle of Mount Badon, that Trooper again mentions, to 516-or 518AD - and also mentions the death of Arthur in 537 or 539. But was this the "King Arthur" of the later work of Geoffrey of Monmouth, who really popularised the figure - and some say began the legend of King Arthur - in his Histic Regum Britannia (History of the kings of Britain) written in 1130 - some 600 years or so later? Note that in Welsh - the name of Arthur has been conjectured to derive from Arth ( Bear ) and (g)wr (man) - to give Arthwr - or Arthur in modern English - who was clearly a Bear of a Man! That would fit in with a strong leader alright.

One interesting relic survives - which it is claimed comes from the 6C - is a work by the welsh poet Anneirin (known as Y Gododdin) - which gives details of the bravery of one warrior who personally accounts for slaying 300 enemy - yet the author notes "he is no Arthwr" - referring to the bravery of the former King Arthur? The problem (yet again) is, it is known only as a manuscript written in c.1275, so is impossible to know whether this is a narrative account from the time claimed (6th C), or a later interpolation. Another example perhaps of the "Dark Ages" syndrome?

Another famous Welsh text "The Mabinogion" (c.1100) - and still available today - contains long lists of Arthur's men and their exploits - though once again - centuries later than the death of Arthur.

How much of all of these narratives are invention based on legend - and how much are true echoes of the actual historical past? The language of Welsh itself is phonetic - and as one of the oldest languages in europe, pre-dates the written word. So Legends - just as the language itself - will abound as they and the language are passed down - and doubtless changes - through the generations - as oral traditions. For this very reason - the Dark Ages will keep their secrets tight - at least for a while yet, methinks.

Johnnybach

 

[larso]

I guess the situation varied depending on location. I'd imagin that Pict/Scoti raiders troubled the North in fairly short order. Areas like York and Chester, that had had Legions based there would've had a core of retired legionairs about but these would only have been effective soldiers for not much more than another 10 - 15 years. Even so law and order would be ok for that time. If I recall my history, the British invited the Germanic tribes to Britain to provide muscle but I'm not sure against who? This was an Empire wide response to the collapse of Roman power.

We can only guess at the number of Romanised Brits/Celts, and while some would have evacuated to Rome, surely most stayed and lived pretty much as they had? But for how long? I think the Angles/Saxons/Jutes arrived from 450? While some histories state it was an invasion, other research indicates it was a more gradual migration? Probably a bit of both. So, potentially, in an ordered part of the island, not too close to easy to invade spots, some people must have maintained Roman ways for a couple of generations? I guess the collapse of Roman taxation and trade might have had the worst effect of all?

 

[theBaron]

The first thing to consider is that we're not talking about a bunch of Italians ruling in isolation over a subjugated and tattooed population of Celts, seething to overthrow their Latin masters. Britannia was a well-established province, and there was a good deal of co-mingling. There was relatively organized life in the towns, and rule of law, with the magistrates and other officals to direct and enforce it. When Imperial control was finally withdrawn, it didn't mean a complete break with Roman law and custom, but it did mean that the province was now open more than ever to incursions from the unconquered areas of the island, and that there was nothing to stop a local nobleman from taking contral and establishing patronage. Into this disorganized mix, some locals invited Angles, Jutes and Saxons as mercenaries to replace the legions. And as happened elsewhere in the Roman empire, once they arrived, the barbarians decided they liked the country and they invited more of their tribesmen to come and settle, and they established themselves as armed chiefs. There was then a mixing of the Germanic tribal life with the Roman British culture. Eventually they established themselves in their small kingdoms, and fell prey themselves to the later Danish and Norse incursions.

Simon Schama's "A History of Britain" provides an excellent overview of, well, the History of Britain, including the period after the decline of Roman rule. That's where I get the outline above.

Prost!
Brad

 

[Denver]

Churchill's History of the English Speaking People tells the story that answers the question.

 

[Currahee Chris]

I agree with really everything said here. The only think I might add was that Roman withdrawal from Britannia was gradual and began to occur circa 200-230. This wasnt just an up and outta here situation but one more where Britain was on the edge of the frontier and as Rome's resources started to drain and buckle, the further outlying areas were scrapped first.

 

[theBaron]

Precisely, Chris! It was a gradual change, generally, as opposed to a catastrophic one, though punctuated with events that influenced the direction the change took.

Prost!
Brad

 

[Martin Tabony]

The culture changed but there seems little evidence that the people themselves did. I mean if I wear Levis and drink Coca-Cola, that doesn't make me American!
As a matter of interest, Hadrians Wall was pretty much intact until the unification of England and Scotland. (the wall is not the border as many southerners believe, between the wall and the border is the county of Northumberland.) This lead to the end of reiving and more settlement. Now most of "The Whaal" is in local farm houses!
Martin

 

[larso]

So if I were to equate the situation to my life. I live in Brisbane. If Canberra (hard to think of that place as Rome but whatever) withdrew the army from my province (Queensland) it wouldn't affect my life at all. The province leaders (State Govt) - if they stayed - without an army wouldn't be able to enforce edicts and bit by bit the outlying towns would switch to local rule. This would impact on tax collection and institutions - universities, hospitals, some manufactering, would begin to suffer. Leading to a drop, then absence of people trained to build bridges, fix city infrastructure, run public transport and so on. This would accelerate as trade with other provinces fell away. So I would live in my same house, dress the same but the economy would be gradually contracting and wealth levels for many would decline. It would still be impressive enough to eventually attract raiders from Cairns/Townsville and New Zealand.

Does the collapse of the former Soviet Union in the 1990s illustrate what happened to Rome reasonably well?

 

[Currahee Chris]

Does the collapse of the former Soviet Union in the 1990s illustrate what happened to Rome reasonably well?

No, not at all in my opinion. I think the British return of Hong Kong would be a bit closer. This was a gradual process, much like erosion in nature. By 200, most of Brtain was already firmly entrenched in Romanization and they were acting Roman whether they knew it or not. By 400, much of the ancient Celtic tradition was gone, though not entirely. The Dark Ages came about due to the massive power gap that existed because of the loss of centralized roman rule.

My friend, by all means feel free to pose this topic on www.romanarmytalk.com. Scores of Phd types, historical reenactors and authors of several books frequent over there. Its a great site for all thing Roman and Greek. We'd love to have your company.

 

[The Military Workshop]

Not much of a historian but did the Romans run out of posts and had to leave{sm4}

 

[theBaron]

Does the collapse of the former Soviet Union in the 1990s illustrate what happened to Rome reasonably well?

I'm with Chris, there's no parallel at all. For one thing, the Soviets held those territories for a far shorter time than the Romans were in Britain. For another, they tried to Russify their conquered and vassal territories by force, in the same way that the Russian Empire did, and there was resistance to those efforts. Poles don't want to be Russian, as closely related as they are, the Balts and Finns are even less eager, to say nothing of the Turkic and other Central Asian people in those countries. For them all, Imperial/Soviet domination was a chapter in their respective histories. It left a mark, but I don't think it was nearly as much of an influence as Roman civilization was on the Celtic tribes of Britannia.

Prost!
Brad

 

[larso]

"Does the collapse of the former Soviet Union in the 1990s illustrate what happened to Rome reasonably well?"

Is there another example from recent history then?

Actually I know of RAT - it's a great site. I read it frequently but don't post. The knowledge levels there are amazing!

 

[Currahee Chris]

In looking back at all of this, I do believe the tragedy that the Roman legacy left on a slew of cultures were that they were systematically wiped out. The British people who existed prior to 43 would be far different than the romanized British people of even today. The Roman way of life was assimilated all over Western Europe and we are really only starting to discover what the ancient peoples of Europe were really like. Who knows how many traditions, languages and even technologies and ideas and arts were lost because of the Romans.

 

[aujj65]

What happened after the Romans left Britain?.......we all grew our hair longer again! :wink2: ^&grin

Jeff

 

[johnnybach]

And whilst they were here - what did they ever do for us????

 

[theBaron]

In looking back at all of this, I do believe the tragedy that the Roman legacy left on a slew of cultures were that they were systematically wiped out. The British people who existed prior to 43 would be far different than the romanized British people of even today. The Roman way of life was assimilated all over Western Europe and we are really only starting to discover what the ancient peoples of Europe were really like. Who knows how many traditions, languages and even technologies and ideas and arts were lost because of the Romans.

I'm not sure I agree with the lament. How many tribes barely out of the Stone Age would still be wearing skins and drinking the blood of their enemies from their hollowed-out skulls, instead of enjoying baths, indoor plumbing, wine, and goods traded from the North Sea and the Baltic to deepest Africa, and from Cornwall to India? And who knows how long it'd have taken them to learn their ABC's, too. The Germanic runes, for example, aren't even Germanic in origin--they're derived from the early alphabets the Etruscans and Latins used. I think Roman culture was a net benefit.

Prosit! (which is also Latin-we can't escape it!)
Brad

 

[theBaron]

And whilst they were here - what did they ever do for us????

That reminds me of this...

http://youtu.be/ExWfh6sGyso